National Rail Conditions of Carriage: Not worth the paper they're written on?

[noddingdonkey]

To continue the discussion in this thread, it seems that some people think that where the NRCOC and railway byelaws contradict each other, the byelaws trump the COC even where the COC are more beneficial to the passenger.

This leads to several questions:

1) Why are the NRCOC and byelaws allowed to contradict each other?
2) Is "The NRCOC says it's allowed so I believed it was" a defence to being accused of a crime under the byelaws?
3) Are the NRCOC worth the paper they're written on?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If I understood your point of view correctly, it was relating to a passenger who had travelled beyond the destination printed on their ticket.

The NRCoC refered to such a passenger's liability to pay the fare for that additional journey, and the Byelaws refered to an offence having arisen in such a situation.
I understood that you took those 2 statements to be in contradiction with each other; as if only one could be true (or would be applicable) but not both.
I do not.
In fact, if a passenger was to find themselves being prosecuted for ticketless travel after having over-travelled, and the prosecution succeeded, then they would, usually, become liable to pay both a fine for the offence and the fare for the journey.

A defence based on a reference to Compliance with the Conditions may have some merit, but as all but one of the Byelaw Offences are 'strict liability' then it is unlikely to lead to any more than a discharge. But a defence based on a compliance with a Condition which did not expressly authorise the contravention of the Byelaws, as in the example above, would probably fail.

I also understood that you wanted to show that the Conditions in the NRCoC applied to a passenger who had continued beyond the destination printed on their ticket. Again I disagreed, as the Contract to which those conditions applied will have terminated when the passenger reached their destination. There is no contract in force once the contracted journey has been completed, and therefore no Conditions.

If there were other elements to your criticism of how the Byelaws and the NRCoC correspond with each other, then I'd be grateful if you could outline them again for us in this thread, please.

 

[noddingdonkey]

That's pretty much it. My reading of the NCOC is that if you travel further than your ticket allows you will be allowed to buy a ticket for that additional journey.

If, in fact, the position is that if you travel further than your ticket allows you will be prosecuted, what justification is there for that misinformation to be in the NRCOC?

 

[furlong]

Might another view be that the NRCoC paragraph "if you travel further than a ticket allows" amounts to a provision that automatically extends the contract in these circumstances but imposes an obligation to pay a further fare or Penalty Fare?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The NRCOC says you will be liable to pay the full single/return fare (or a penalty fare), not that you be allowed to buy one.

 

[Mojo]

I too have long thought this. It's interesting that the NR Conditions state that travelling without a ticket mean you will be charged the full fare or a Penalty fare (if appropriate) but neglect to mention a prosecution.

This is in contrast to the TfL Conditions which explicitly states that you ''may be issued with a Penalty fare or you may be prosecuted.''

 

[Goatboy]

Until I started frequenting this forum I had no idea you could be prosecuted outside of a PF zone. I thought the option to buy a full fare Anytime Single or Return was always open to you onboard a train irrespective of the status of the booking office unless it was a PF Zone.

Infact, my understanding was that the entire point of a PF zone was to remove this policy from areas like London and the South East.

You can therefore imagine how suprised I was to find people being prosecuted for this. It's not something I'd ever come across before - but then I'd always bought beforehand simply to save money on the ticket price but never because I thought it was illegal.

I'd previously read the NRCOC, obviously.

 

[furlong]

Again I disagreed, as the Contract to which those conditions applied will have terminated when the passenger reached their destination. There is no contract in force once the contracted journey has been completed, and therefore no Conditions.

"Condition 2 or 4 will apply for that additional part of your journey."

 

[snail]

The NRCOC says you will be liable to pay the full single/return fare (or a penalty fare), not that you be allowed to buy one.

Liable: Bound or obliged by law or equity, or in accordance with a rule or convention
Allowed: Permitted, authorized

I think in both cases it's reasonable to think you may be prosecuted if you don't have a valid ticket when challenged. As we suggest to people caught without a ticket in other situations, getting one on the train is the best action. Once you leave the train you are in the hands of the station RPIs, who are often much less flexible.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That's pretty much it. . . . . . . . . . what justification is there for that misinformation to be in the NRCOC?

But I was NOT agreeing that the two statements are in contradiction! And not that they amount to misinformation!

As HHF has elaborated, the wording in the Conditions, which is backed up by practice, is that the passenger in that situation is still liable for the fare, even if they don't have a ticket.
This is not in contradiction with the fact that they have already committed the Offence for which a prosecution is also a possibility.
I had hoped that my first response would illustrate that the two elements which you find to be in contradiction are quite compatable with each other and can co-exist, in word and in action.

In fact, the pre-amble to the NRCoC which you're referring to states: "When you are present in or using stations, train services and other facilities on the National Rail Network, you must also comply with the Byelaws" which seems to strengthen the requirement to read the two together.

Again I disagreed, as the Contract to which those conditions applied will have terminated when the passenger reached their destination. There is no contract in force once the contracted journey has been completed, and therefore no Conditions.

"Condition 2 or 4 will apply for that additional part of your journey."

This is a more interesting observation, as there does appear to be a technical problem (that a condition can apply when there is no contract in force). I'll just make 2 observations for now:
Firstly, that the NRCoC seems to begin at a time before travel:- "2. Requirement to hold a ticket
Before you travel you must have a ticket" which is not only relevant to the question here, but also imposes a pre-condition to travel and implies a Condition which is asserted before the Contracted journey begins. However, I don't see that as a contradiction.
Secondly, a passenger who is out-of-contract, over-travelling or otherwise in breach, is still travelling and so they are incurring responsibilities and benefitting from services; it appears to follow that Contractural obligations might accrue, even if the original Contract has been fulfilled. In fact, we must assume that contractural obligations have accrued, but they are not part of the Contract which has ended - the passenger has begun an new relationship with the Company, for which they didn't pay.

 

[cjp]

But I was NOT agreeing that the two statements are in contradiction! And not that they amount to misinformation!
Secondly, a passenger who is out-of-contract, over-travelling or otherwise in breach, is still travelling and so they are incurring responsibilities and benefitting from services; it appears to follow that Contractural obligations might accrue, even if the original Contract has been fulfilled. In fact, we must assume that contractural obligations have accrued, but they are not part of the Contract which has ended - the passenger has begun an new relationship with the Company, for which they didn't pay.

I support what has been written and suggest in future it would always be more helpful to descibe what is happening when a person is travelling without a ticket as a Relationship between that person and the carrier rather than a Contract.

Compare a property owner's Relationship or Duty of Care towards a trespassser.
No contract but both parties have certain obligations