LNER and GWR want to restrict passengers' rights during disruption: is this right?

[yorkie]

Let's say a passenger books an itinerary like this:
http://www.fastjp.com/#journeys?orig=EXD&dest=NCL&odate=20190219&otime=1050&maxres=11&maxch=2

Exeter St Davids d. 1055
London Paddington a. 1315

London Kings Cross d. 1400
Newcastle a. 1651

If there are severe delays causing them to be at King's Cross for the 1500 or later, do they have an automatic right to take the next available service?

I say yes.

However LNER and GWR are both saying they do not have that right if they have bought a combination of tickets:
https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1059547261481422849

I'm afraid if you had a Super Off Peak ticket Nick, you would need to pay an excess to use it on a service classed as Peak. If you'd purchased the ticket to cover the whole journey, you would have been able to board the next service. ^JC

As such, we would recommend either purchasing one ticket to cover the whole journey, or an Anytime ticket for the second portion to ensure flexibility if you do encounter delays. 2/2 ^JC

To clarify Nick, you've been charged for travelling on a Peak service with an Off Peak ticket, because the ticket you held was invalid. ^JC

I don't know how people like 'JC' can say that with a clear conscience. I find it deeply worrying.

https://twitter.com/GWRHelp/status/1059771122026250241

Hi Nick, you can claim for the delay by emailing [email protected] if you're delayed on a through ticket it will be valid on the next available train. If you used a combination of separate tickets you would need to pay the peak fare.

We could consider partial reimbursement as a gesture of goodwill but that's why we don't advise buying a combination of tickets, as even though it can be cheaper in some cases you're not covered if the two separate journeys are delayed.

Because you weren't using a through ticket the excess fare was correctly charged, but please send details and tickets to our Customer Support team at [email protected] for a gesture of goodwill towards this to be considered. Phil.

What Phil from GWR says is in direct contravention of the NRCoT and GWR's own charter:

https://www.gwr.com/about-us/our-business/passengers-charter

If you have a combination of tickets

If you have a combination of tickets for your journey, we’ll compensate you for your whole journey in line with the compensation arrangements above.

If some of your tickets are for trips with other train companies, we’ll compensate you if we caused the delay....

I am in contact with the customer and am encouraging him to seek redress from GWR and LNER.

Twitter has its problems, which I do not want to go into here as that's a whole different topic, but one benefit of Twitter is that TOCs can be brought to account for giving incorrect, misleading advice, breaching consumer/contract laws, as we can see what they're up to.

I am aware that some individuals who work in social media roles for train companies are deeply unhappy that people such as myself identify tweets where they have mis-advised customers, and then help those customers. That is entirely their right to be outraged at being caught out, if they want. But I will do what I know is right, and my message to them (and I know they will read this) is: You can't stop me.

 

[gray1404]

Totally wrong on the part of a TOC. If a customer is delayed when travelled on a valid combination of tickets (i.e. would have been valid at the times traveled if not for the delay) they are entitled to use the next available trains without having to buy additional tickets. I would say GWR and LNER are in breach of their franchise here and the NRCoT. Although it looks like it was LNER who charged for the additional tickets so GWR have simply given out information that is incorrect. So not only to we have some TOCs refusing delay repay claims with a combination of tickets but now actually denying travel and insisting customers buy new tickets. Not acceptable.

 

[Paul Kelly]

If a customer is delayed when travelled on a valid combination of tickets (i.e. would have been valid at the times traveled if not for the delay) they are entitled to use the next available trains without having to buy additional tickets.

We all know that's true and has been put in writing by ATOC for the case when the tickets concerned are advance fares. But while it would seem logical that the same applies when the tickets involved are walk-up fares, I'm not aware of that being put in writing anywhere. I don't believe there is any such "entitlement". Unless I have missed something. So it's a very interesting test case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What you say certainly makes sense, though it's long been a grey area when talking about combining walk-up tickets rather than Advances. There is also the complication regarding whether using Oyster or contactless counts as a continuous journey if you're going across London or not, which has been debated here before, centring around the use of the word "ticket".

Here's a real life example that could have caught me out this week as a result of the chronic unreliability of the Southern WLL service, and this one doesn't even involve a split. Consider travelling on an Off Peak Day Travelcard from Bletchley to West Brompton, returning on the 1647 service, which notwithstanding a couple of quirks in the restriction LW[1] is valid as the text of the restriction is thus:

RETURN TRAVEL

Not valid on trains timed to
depart from London Terminals
before 09:15 and after 16:49
and before 19:01

(It's valid on two grounds - West Brompton is not a London Terminal (there's even a poster there pointing this out), and it isn't after 1649 anyway)

However, there is a problem. If the WLL is up the Swannee, as it often is, travelling via London is prudent - but by the time you get to Euston it's the peak and travel is going to be refused.

Hmm.

[1] There are a load of things wrong with LW. First of all, there *is* an evening peak electronic restriction leaving Kensington Olympia despite the text of the restriction not mentioning it. Secondly, the morning peak restriction only mentions a few stations, and as such West Brompton should show on the planners as being Off Peak at all times, but something else seems to prevent this, e.g. some kind of check on the Travelcard part.

 

[yorkie]

I am convinced entitlement exists in consumer and contract laws (and I have discussed the matter with solicitors and barristers; it's not just my opinion!) but I agree that the rail industry's internal KnowledgeBase (iKB) needs to reflect this, so it needs amending accordingly.

I know some people used to claim the rail industry was exempt from consumer law; I always used to argue with that incorrect claim, and now no-one can deny that consumer law does apply.

I urge LNER and GWR to do the right thing in all areas of their businesses before they end up losing a high profile legal case, as eventually someone will bring such a case if things continue as they have been.

 

[gray1404]

Perhaps we could direct the passenger who was over charged to this post on the forum and assist him in taking up this with the TOCs concerned - taking it further if required.

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps we could direct the passenger who was over charged to this post on the forum and assist him in taking up this with the TOCs concerned - taking it further if required.

@yorkie already said he is in contact with them.

 

[Silverdale]

I tend agree with @Indigo2.

The restriction which applies to the ticket that was purchased means that it isn't valid for travel on the 15:00. There are no exceptions given, even where disruption to travel elsewhere causes the earlier service to be missed.

However, it still has validity for travel on the 19:00 and later departures from Kings Cross, so there is no direct and logical read-across from the case of an Advance ticket, or other ticket which is only valid on a specified train, where a customer would be stranded if they were not allowed onward travel on a later connecting service, in the event of delays.

I submit that you are comparing apples with cheese.

 

[yorkie]

I tend agree with @Indigo2.

The restriction which applies to the ticket that was purchased means that it isn't valid for travel on the 15:00. There are no exceptions given, even where disruption to travel elsewhere causes the earlier service to be missed.

However, it still has validity for travel on the 19:00 and later departures from Kings Cross, so there is no direct and logical read-across from the case of an Advance ticket, or other ticket which is only valid on a specified train, where a customer would be stranded if they were not allowed onward travel on a later connecting service, in the event of delays.

I submit that you are comparing apples with cheese.

The consumer is contractually entitled to make a journey between Exeter and Newcastle. The price and terms of that contract have been agreed. The TOCs accept this is one journey, not two journeys, and there is no legal justification for the TOCs to then demand more money from the customer to continue their journey, when the customer has not carried out any action to vary the contract.

GWR accept that any delay to the customers journey will be based on the final arrival time into Newcastle; there is no contractual justification for this to be 4 hours later than it can be.

We know that if the customer held an Exeter to London Advance, and a London to Newcastle Advance, they would be entitled to board the 1500 London to Newcastle.

Do you really believe that a customer should have fewer rights because their London to Newcastle ticket is a flexible Super Off Peak ticket, than if they held an Advance ticket? If so, why?

 

[Termy]

But I will do what I know is right, and my message to them (and I know they will read this) is: You can't stop me.

Too damned right. You keep doing this amazing thing. Don't let ANYTHING stop you!

 

[gray1404]

The NRCoT expressly allows for a passenger to use one or more tickets to complete their journey. Therefore the customer had the same contractual rights as if a through ticket was held. The TOCs concerned have no basis for treating this as 2 separate journeys and have breached their contract here and franchise agreement.

LNER should be refunding the additional ticket they forced the customer to buy incorrectly. The customer was entitled to take the next train and should not have been charged. GWR should be paying compensation based on the value of both tickets held and the final arrival time into Newcastle if their compensation scheme allows.

This looks like yet another attempt to deny customers their full rights when using a combination of tickets.

 

[maniacmartin]

If the passenger allows enough time to interchange (which they just managed to do here), and is delayed during their rail journey and miss a connection, then the following passages are relevant:

14.1 Unless shown below, you may use a combination of two or more Tickets to make a journey provided that the train services you use call at the station(s) where you change from one Ticket to another.

9.4. Where you are using a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services (such as an ‘advance’ Ticket) and you miss a service because a previous connecting train service was delayed, you will be able to travel on the next train service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked without penalty

I suppose this hinges on whether an Off Peak walkup ticket is "a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services". Let's imagine for a moment that the passenger held a hypothetical through ticket from Exeter to Newcastle instead, which had the same restriction on leaving King's Cross as mentioned upthread. Would anyone actually argue that due to s. 9.4 they would have to wait at King's Cross for hours due to a delay on the first train? That would be absurd. Whatever answer you gave to the hypothetical through ticket would also apply to travelling with split tickets, as s. 9.4 doesn't treat split tickets differently.

Thus I believe that the passenger should have been conveyed on the next available service that conforms with any TOC-only restriction.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I suppose this hinges on whether an Off Peak walkup ticket is "a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services". Let's imagine for a moment that the passenger held a hypothetical through ticket from Exeter to Newcastle instead, which had the same restriction on leaving King's Cross as mentioned upthread. Would anyone actually argue that due to s. 9.4 they would have to wait at King's Cross for hours due to a delay on the first train? That would be absurd. Whatever answer you gave to the hypothetical through ticket would also apply to travelling with split tickets, as s. 9.4 doesn't treat split tickets differently.

Agreed it would be absurd but, to play devil's advocate, perhaps LNER might attempt to distinguish the two answers by saying that in the case of a through ticket, the passenger would have no contractual entitlement to travel on the next train but they would allow it as a goodwill gesture, whereas in the case of split tickets, they wouldn't make a goodwill gesture and would instead force the passenger to wait 4 hours.

 

[Paul Kelly]

However, it still has validity for travel on the 19:00 and later departures from Kings Cross, so there is no direct and logical read-across from the case of an Advance ticket, or other ticket which is only valid on a specified train, where a customer would be stranded if they were not allowed onward travel on a later connecting service, in the event of delays.

Interesting point. Would it make a difference if the ticket was not from King's Cross to Newcastle but to, say, Haltwhistle. The last connection to Haltwhistle connects out of the 18:00 from King's Cross, so if the passenger was forced to wait until 19:00 they would end up stranded somewhere.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think one aspect of the situation that has perhaps not been considered so far is the contractual term that the service will be provided with reasonable care and skill, which is an implied term in every consumer contract for services.

The base position for when the delayed passenger turns up at King's Cross is that the railway, with whom he has a contract to be conveyed from Exeter to Newcastle in line with the timetable in place when booking (and the reservations presumably obtained at the time), have committed a breach of contract through failing to convey the passenger to one of the intermediate stations - namely London Paddington - in time to travel as per the rest of the itinerary.

I think it undoubtedly constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill if, having every ability to remedy this breach and/or minimise the (timewise) impact of this breach, by permitting travel on the next available service, the railway demand an additional amount, which has no bearing in the consideration originally agreed, to do just this.

As the obligation to exercise reasonable care and skill is a contractual term, this knowingful and intentional breach thereof constitutes a substantial breach of contract, for which various claims may exist.

If I were the passenger, I would thus be claiming not only for any and all appropriate delay compensation (on the basis of the price of the original tickets), but also a reimbursement of the tortiously charged excess.

I doubt GWR would try to get out of paying delay compensation in a case like this (unless they allege the cause of the delay was entirely outside the control of the rail industry). But that is a separate claim to the one for reimbursement of the excess.

If LNER refused to reimburse this, I would simply process a card chargeback if a debit card was used to pay for the excess, or, if either the excess or the original tickets were purchased on a credit card, I would proceed with a S75 claim against the credit provider.

Now, the former option is not guaranteed to work, but banks are obliged to at least consider and process such a request (under the obligation to ''treat the customer fairly"; if only this existed in the rail industry - all the TOCs would go bankrupt!). Given the evidence of the matter and the severity of the outcome (or loss), I would be surprised if there was any outcome other than the chargeback being admitted. There is also recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service if the bank doesn't handle the matter acceptably.

It's obviously atrocious customer service and, frankly, insane, that it is the currently the railway's (incorrect and tortious) policy that passengers who have paid extra for a more flexible ticket are actually at risk of either being massively delayed or having to pay for an excess that's probably two times as much as their existing tickets' cost.

Perhaps this will be the case that spurs the rail industry (and specifically the RDG) into applying a new policy of accepting tickets which have 'become' invalid through earlier railway-related delays.

It's not unprecedented for policy to change in response to a major public backlash regarding ridiculous stories like this: remember the story about the professor who got off early at Durham with an Advance where he shouldn't have and was charged an enormous excess, and the resultant policy change to letting passengers out without charge?

 

[yorkie]

...remember the story about the professor who got off early at Durham with an Advance where he shouldn't have and was charged an enormous excess, and the resultant policy change to letting passengers out without charge?

For anyone who missed that one, here it is : https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/professor-slapped-with-£155-railway-fine-for-getting-off-the-train-one-stop-early.36910/ (the conditions theoretically allowed an excess up to the cheapest valid fare to be charged; it was completely wrong for a new full fare ticket to be charged, but this - and similar cases - brought the rail industry into disrepute, thus resulting a policy change to allow people to finish short in such circumstances without being charged anything), though there aren't too many parallels here, but I take your point that it takes an incident to be publicised before anything is done.

LNER are playing a dangerous game here as the customer is a BBC radio presenter.

 

[Quakkerillo]

Although I believe that compensation is due, just because it seems very reasonable, I have a few questions regarding the procedures surrounding this.

It's not that I disagree that the person should get compensated, but I just would like to learn a bit more concerning the (legal) logic behind it.

1. Would it be part of the issue that the tickets held were to London Paddington, and from London Euston, thus not covering the cross-London part? Since there was no NR service involved in getting between Paddington and Kings Cross, how does that work with it being a single journey, instead of two separate ones? I thought I had heard some complications could arise from cross-London transfers, but I forgot the technicalities surrounding this.
   
   
2. Since the passenger had an Advance ticket, followed by a non-Advance ticket, there is not really a(n easy) way for the TOC to see if the original intent of the passenger was to actually remain in London for x time, and to make their way to Newcastle later in the evening. Although unlikely, it *would* be possible if plans weren't fixed that someone in a similar situation might exploit it to then (claim to) travel onwards earlier than originally planned to get refunds for both tickets. If it were the other way round, it's much clearer that the passenger in question really was intending to end on a specific train, thus the time of the delay proves that it was a single journey.

 

[yorkie]

Would it be part of the issue that the tickets held were to London Paddington, and from London Euston, thus not covering the cross-London part? Since there was no NR service involved in getting between Paddington and Kings Cross, how does that work with it being a single journey, instead of two separate ones? I thought I had heard some complications could arise from cross-London transfers, but I forgot the technicalities surrounding this.

No.

Notwithstanding the fact that the tickets are issued to/from the same location ("London Terminals"), this concept is covered in the "Advance Fare FAQs" and it clarifies there is no "gap".

The customer could purchase a ticket to, or from, Zone U12 London or could use Oyster/Contactless to use London Underground services.

The customer could make their own way between terminals but for the purpose of calculating minimum interchange times and forming valid itineraries, it must be assumed that LU will be used at times LU operate.

Journey planners give itineraries without the use of LU at times LU does not operate.

It would be absurd to suggest there is a gap at times LU operate and not other times.

Therefore, LU is an irrelevance.

Since the passenger had an Advance ticket, followed by a non-Advance ticket, there is not really a(n easy) way for the TOC to see if the original intent of the passenger was to actually remain in London for x time, and to make their way to Newcastle later in the evening. Although unlikely, it *would* be possible if plans weren't fixed that someone in a similar situation might exploit it to then (claim to) travel onwards earlier than originally planned to get refunds for both tickets. If it were the other way round, it's much clearer that the passenger in question really was intending to end on a specific train, thus the time of the delay proves that it was a single journey.

A passenger has a right to make a journey using two or more tickets.

The passenger was travelling at a time that gave them the right to make an uninterrupted journey from Exeter to Newcastle and this is a contractual entitlement that the rail industry is not even disputing!

GWR are not even disputing the fact that the passenger is entitled to delay repay for their entire journey from Exeter to Newcastle, but they are claiming that if the customer wishes to be only 1 hour late instead of 5 hours late, LNER are entitled to charge them an excess fare.

However such a charge is clearly not compliant with consumer and contract law.

We are NOT debating if this counts as one journey or not, nor are we debating if Delay Repay applies.

We are debating if the passenger can be forced to pay an excess fare or incur 4 additional hours delay. I say no. GWR and LNER Twitter teams say yes. But they are - as is often the case on complex fares matters - wrong.

 

[Wolfie]

The NRCoT expressly allows for a passenger to use one or more tickets to complete their journey. Therefore the customer had the same contractual rights as if a through ticket was held. The TOCs concerned have no basis for treating this as 2 separate journeys and have breached their contract here and franchise agreement.

LNER should be refunding the additional ticket they forced the customer to buy incorrectly. The customer was entitled to take the next train and should not have been charged. GWR should be paying compensation based on the value of both tickets held and the final arrival time into Newcastle if their compensation scheme allows.

This looks like yet another attempt to deny customers their full rights when using a combination of tickets.

Absolutely. If they don't refund then MCOL is a given.

 

[Wolfie]

For anyone who missed that one, here it is : https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/professor-slapped-with-£155-railway-fine-for-getting-off-the-train-one-stop-early.36910/ (the conditions theoretically allowed an excess up to the cheapest valid fare to be charged; it was completely wrong for a new full fare ticket to be charged, but this - and similar cases - brought the rail industry into disrepute, thus resulting a policy change to allow people to finish short in such circumstances without being charged anything), though there aren't too many parallels here, but I take your point that it takes an incident to be publicised before anything is done.

LNER are playing a dangerous game here as the customer is a BBC radio presenter.

I love it .. l wonder just how many politicians are in the customer's address book? I would love the stupid arrogant greedy TOCs to push so far that the whole rotten legal edifice they depends on gets toppled. Make them subject to ALL consumer regulation then watch the useless idiots squirm.

 

[superalbs]

Surely 9.4 would apply?

Where you are using a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services (such as
an ‘advance’ Ticket) and you miss a service because a previous connecting train
service was delayed, you will be able to travel on the next train service provided by the
Train Company with whom you were booked without penalty.

The super off-peak ticket is valid on specific services (between certain times), so there is no possible grounds to deny travel because of the previous connecting train service.

 

[Quakkerillo]

The reason why I asked is that - while LNER is obviously wrong - GWR tweeted in the follow-up "you're not covered if the two separate journeys are delayed.". This made me believe that to them, they were NOT a single journey. I don't know if both tweets were by the same member of staff, as the tweets aren't signed, but to me, it sounds as if they're different people using two different reasons. The first employee making it sound like delay (repay) procedures (like refunds/using next train) are not available with split ticketing, while the other claims they're not even a single journey. In essence, this gives the same result here, but to me it really sounds as if two different wrong approaches are then being used here.

Furthermore, the second point I was trying to make may actually not have been the best question to make, now I have given it more thought. I had just considered the option that if I needed to go from A to C, it would be cheapest to buy the tickets A->B and a more expensive B->C. As B->C would be the best/cheapest option a regular off-peak, why not make the most of my time in B if I don't need to be in C at a specific time. Now, if I encounter a delay A->B, I could suddenly change my plans to immediately continue on to C, so that the whole journey would be delayed, and I'd be able to get back money on my expensive B->C ticket as well. But I now see that that'd open a huge 'can of worms', as then anyone with a non-timerestricted ticket may get needlessly scrutinised and hassled by TOC's if they happen to travel during disruption / with trains they know are running delayed. And especially every split ticketing delay like that would be even worse off if TOC's wouldn't believe the story. So apologies if my question sounded ill-hearted, but I didn't really give it enough thought originally.

 

[yorkie]

The reason why I asked is that - while LNER is obviously wrong - GWR tweeted in the follow-up "you're not covered if the two separate journeys are delayed.". This made me believe that to them, they were NOT a single journey.

The NRCoT and GWR's own charter make the position clear that it is all one journey.

Some TOCs employ unknowledgable people who, on occasions, just make stuff up. LNER and GWR are repeat offenders in this area.

I don't mind innocent mistakes, and I do not expect everyone to be an expert. But making things up in order to deny people their rights is something I find offensive.

I don't know if both tweets were by the same member of staff, as the tweets aren't signed, but to me, it sounds as if they're different people using two different reasons.

That is possible, or someone just inventing any old excuse they can think of. It's a really alien concept to me because I can't really imagine doing a job where you just make things up like that.

The first employee making it sound like delay (repay) procedures (like refunds/using next train) are not available with split ticketing, while the other claims they're not even a single journey. In essence, this gives the same result here, but to me it really sounds as if two different wrong approaches are then being used here.

When people are so fundamentally wrong I am not sure it's really possible to deduce what they're thinking, but you could be right.

Furthermore, the second point I was trying to make may actually not have been the best question to make, now I have given it more thought. I had just considered the option that if I needed to go from A to C, it would be cheapest to buy the tickets A->B and a more expensive B->C. As B->C would be the best/cheapest option a regular off-peak, why not make the most of my time in B if I don't need to be in C at a specific time. Now, if I encounter a delay A->B, I could suddenly change my plans to immediately continue on to C, so that the whole journey would be delayed, and I'd be able to get back money on my expensive B->C ticket as well. But I now see that that'd open a huge 'can of worms', as then anyone with a non-timerestricted ticket may get needlessly scrutinised and hassled by TOC's if they happen to travel during disruption / with trains they know are running delayed. And especially every split ticketing delay like that would be even worse off if TOC's wouldn't believe the story. So apologies if my question sounded ill-hearted, but I didn't really give it enough thought originally.

No worries The concept of planning to do a stop off and then not being able to is related, but sufficiently different to warrant its own thread when such an incident occurs (I think we have had threads on this before; I will see if I can dig some out and send you a direct message)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The reason why I asked is that - while LNER is obviously wrong - GWR tweeted in the follow-up "you're not covered if the two separate journeys are delayed.". This made me believe that to them, they were NOT a single journey. I don't know if both tweets were by the same member of staff, as the tweets aren't signed, but to me, it sounds as if they're different people using two different reasons. The first employee making it sound like delay (repay) procedures (like refunds/using next train) are not available with split ticketing, while the other claims they're not even a single journey. In essence, this gives the same result here, but to me it really sounds as if two different wrong approaches are then being used here.

Whichever approach was being used, it was and is wrong, I think we can agree. NRCoT 14.1 is really quite unambiguous as far as the NRCoT goes, so I don't think there is any leeway in GWR or LNER claiming it wasn't one journey, regardless of whether or not a ticket was held entitling a cross-London transfer by Underground/DLR/Thameslink. It's sad, really, because the NRCoT is probably far simpler to read and understand than most of the training materials and corporate gobbledegook that will have been instilled in the Twitter staffers. And you can summarise the important bits in probably about 3 or 4 pages!

Furthermore, the second point I was trying to make may actually not have been the best question to make, now I have given it more thought. I had just considered the option that if I needed to go from A to C, it would be cheapest to buy the tickets A->B and a more expensive B->C. As B->C would be the best/cheapest option a regular off-peak, why not make the most of my time in B if I don't need to be in C at a specific time. Now, if I encounter a delay A->B, I could suddenly change my plans to immediately continue on to C, so that the whole journey would be delayed, and I'd be able to get back money on my expensive B->C ticket as well. But I now see that that'd open a huge 'can of worms', as then anyone with a non-timerestricted ticket may get needlessly scrutinised and hassled by TOC's if they happen to travel during disruption / with trains they know are running delayed. And especially every split ticketing delay like that would be even worse off if TOC's wouldn't believe the story. So apologies if my question sounded ill-hearted, but I didn't really give it enough thought originally.

There will always be an element of trust in relation to both these kinds of things, and delay compensation claims, until such time as we have mind reading and compulsory entry/exit scanners on every train! But I don't think there is any mileage (ha!) in a TOC trying to claim something like this. They would need some really good evidence for it to be seen as anything other than, effectively, filibustering.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Surely 9.4 would apply?


The super off-peak ticket is valid on specific services (between certain times), so there is no possible grounds to deny travel because of the previous connecting train service.

An excellent point. I had been wondering that, but I hadn't actually read it in that light, but now you say that, I don't see any other reason that the phrase "train services" (plural) could possibly be in there: after all, Advances and the like are indeed only valid on one or more specific booked serhices, and not a variety of different ones that you can choose from (OK, ignoring unreserved legs of Advances!).

 

[Silverdale]

Surely 9.4 would apply?

The super off-peak ticket is valid on specific services (between certain times), so there is no possible grounds to deny travel because of the previous connecting train service.

It depends crucially on whether "specific services" are either; a chain of specific booked connecting services, or a specific group of alternative services, or, potentially, both.

If 9.4 does apply to a specific group of alternative services, then clearly the descriptor in parentheses "(such as an 'advance' ticket)" is misleading as the specific services on which an advance ticket is valid don't have alternatives.

It is also very difficult to read 9.4 coherently if it applies to a flexible ticket such as a Super Off-Peak as it enables travel by the "next available service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked". When you purchase a flexible ticket, although you may be able to reserve a seat, there is no booking involved.

Is 9.4 clearly misleading and incoherent, or does it only apply to a chain of specific booked connecting services?

 

[Starmill]

When you purchase a flexible ticket, although you may be able to reserve a seat, there is no booking involved

This makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. I am not sure how you expect others to take such statements seriously?

However, I shall try:

Is 9.4 clearly misleading and incoherent

Nothing in your post hints that 9.4 is either misleading or incoherent, I'm afraid.

You bolded 'with whom you were booked', even though this does not exclude the possibility that this is referring to any ticket, including both Advance or Super Off-Peak tickets. This is not "misleading" or "incoherent". It is simply saying that the automatic right to travel by the next available train applies only where this is run by the same operator.

Just because you say something is "misleading" or "incoherent" then I am afraid that does not make it so.

 

[gray1404]

Was the passenger charged for a new ticket on board or an excess? They should not have been charged anything but I am just curious.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It depends crucially on whether "specific services" are either; a chain of specific booked connecting services, or a specific group of alternative services, or, potentially, both.

If 9.4 does apply to a specific group of alternative services, then clearly the descriptor in parentheses "(such as an 'advance' ticket)" is misleading as the specific services on which an advance ticket is valid don't have alternatives.

It is also very difficult to read 9.4 coherently if it applies to a flexible ticket such as a Super Off-Peak as it enables travel by the "next available service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked". When you purchase a flexible ticket, although you may be able to reserve a seat, there is no booking involved.

Is 9.4 clearly misleading and incoherent, or does it only apply to a chain of specific booked connecting services?

Any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the consumer. That's settled law and I honestly don't know why everyone goes on considering potential different meanings and which one is most likely to be intended, when all that doesn't matter at all, since you can just pick the most favourable meaning and use that.

The passenger is entitled to take the next service provided by the same company as they were originally due to use, and the kind of ticket they have is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Silverdale]

You bolded 'with whom you were booked', even though this does not exclude the possibility that this is referring to any ticket, including both Advance or Super Off-Peak tickets. This is not "misleading" or "incoherent". It is simply saying that the automatic right to travel by the next available train applies only where this is run by the same operator.

In the case of a London Terminals to Newcastle Super Off-Peak ticket, which is this 'same operator' with whom a customer is 'booked'? Apart from the specific trains on which the ticket concerned is not valid, it may be used on trains run by any operator and on any permitted route.